Once on UD I pointed out that the human chromosomal fusion was a prediction of evolution and someone pointed me to this article, which is probably the most stupid thing ive ever read apart from that Carl Weiland article that AFDave linked to once. After that I didnt read anything he wrote, but this piece trying to rebut Carl Zimmer looks pretty funny.

Once on UD I pointed out that the human chromosomal fusion was a prediction of evolution and someone pointed me to this article, which is probably the most stupid thing ive ever read apart from that Carl Weiland article that AFDave linked to once.

Wow. That article (aside from completely misrepresenting Miller's testimony) is some fine, vintage tard. He says he enjoyed Miller's testimony, which is puzzling, because based on his discussion of it, he didn't read it at all.

--------------2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Luskin:While much of this is witty and fun, these comments reveal an underlying anti-religious mindset by these Darwinist academics who "endorse" FSM in a tone which mocks traditional Judeo-Christian religion.

But ID ain't about Judeo-Christian religion. No sirree Bob. It's just them lying atheist darwinists who say it is. And those ACLU-quoting activist judges.

(snicker) (giggle)

I'd sure love to see these guys on a witness stand again. Alas, since ID is as dead as a mackerel, we will unfortunately never get that chance.

The problem with Dover is, it was such an a55-whooping, any school board who now uses the words 'Intelligent Design' will be subject to hysterical phone calls from their lawyers demanding they drop it. So yeah, we're probably not going to get to see a Dover 2 with new cast members like Dembski. No chance to see the expression on a federal judge's face as he watches Dembski's pooty little insult to the judge's colleague, while Dembski sits on the witness stand and counts down the hours to Big ID Loss 2. No chance for ID Expert Denyse O'Leary to take the stand. Rothschild would probably let his intern Bobby do that cross, just to give her a fighting chance.

They will change their name and get some fresh faces and be back, obviously. But my favorite thing is that all the heavy ID advocates are contaminated with the title.

They will change their name and get some fresh faces and be back, obviously. But my favorite thing is that all the heavy ID advocates are contaminated with the title.

I'm sticking to my prediction that the fundies will now drop anti-evolutionism altogether -- they've lost that fight so many times that it would be simple-minded masochism to keep fighting it. Instead, they will turn to anti-cosmology-ism, by giving us some privately-defined version of "The Anthropic Principle" which, they will say, proves that the universe was specially created . . . uh . . . I mean designed . . . er . . . I mean . . um . . . "adjusted", yeah, *that's* the word, "specially adjusted" . . . just to produce us.

There are several advantages to the fundies for that strategy. First, it completely sidesteps all of their crushingly long list of anti-evolution defeats. Just because anti-evolutionism has already been repeatedly ruled to be non-science religious dogma doesn't mean that anti-cosmology-ism is, right, Your Honor?

Second, if you think people misunderstand evolution, just WAIT till the fundies start spouting out all sorts of sciencey-sounding bullshit about cosmology and quantum physics.

Third, the very name "The Anthropic Principle" sounds vaguely sorta kinda like "Created For Man", so all the members of the Big Tent (remember, The Anthropic Principle says nothing at all about . . . oh . . . how old the earth is, whether or not life evolves, or even whether or not the Big Bang happened) can read into it whatever they like, in whatever form they like it.

And fourth -- and most beautiful of all -- the term "The Anthropic Principle" was itself produced by real live cosmologists, not by foaming fundie nutters, and has actually been used in real science publications. That'll keep the fundie quote-miners employed for years. It'll also allow them to argue in court, "But Your Honor, this is just THEIR OWN SCIENCE that we want to have taught !!!!"

Gee, if I were a dishonest person, I'd write the book myself laying out all those arguments, and thus take credit (all the way to the bank) for starting ID's successor.

Alas, though, the anti-cosmology-ist strategy will ultimately fail too, just like the anti-evolutionist campaign did, and for much the same reasons. There will, for instance, be a documented history tying anti-cosmology directly to fundie anti-evolutionists, going back several decades (there were a couple ICR nutters who wrote articles declaring that Einstein's relativity is wrong and therefore the Big Bang is wrong, and then there's Gonzalez's "universe-was-designed" tome and Heddle's blitherings about "cosmological ID").

And any version of The Anthropic Principle put out by fundies will, of course, be inherently religious, since none but a deity is capable of producing or adjusting a universe (no "maybe the space aliens diddit" this time). And you can be sure that in every "scientific" discussion where the fundie version of "The Anthropic Principle" appears, *some* fundie nutter will stand up in the middle of it and shout "JESUS SAVES !!!!!!" at the top of his lungs, and thus give the whole game away. Just like Intelligent Design, The Anthropic Principle gambit depends for its success completely and totally on the ability of its supporters to shut up about their religious motives. Alas, they simply can't do it. They don't WANT to do it. Their incessant compulsion to preach, will kill them every time. Just like it killed ID.

Of course, without the political support of the Republicrat Party, the fundies are nothing but a sewing circle anyway, and it appears as though the Republicrats will not have real political power again for a long long long time . . .

Indeed, the Republicrat Party itself will likely be in for some awfully rough times ahead. Basically, the Repugs are the "Party of the Angry White Man". Unfortunately for them, by the middle of this century if not sooner, white people will themselves be firmly a minority in the US -- and then the angry white men can stamp their feet all they want, they simply won't have the numbers at the ballot box to win. Women and ethnics will then decide elections, and they're, uh, not very friendly to the Republicrats (and vice versa).

I look for the Republicrats to decline drastically over the next few decades, and either remake themselves completely, or be replaced by an actual conservative political party ("conservative" in the Eisenhower sense, not in the radical Dubya/fundie sense). The alternative would be for the angry white fundie nutters to seize power undemocratically, without elections. I do not dismiss that possibility. Indeed, I think open fascism in the US (as compared to the fig-leaf fascism that we've recently had under Republicrat single-party rule) is a very real option.

And Luskin takes only the "Larry King" approved line of questioning to peddle his propoganda.

Quote

Question (1): “Does the DI have any religious affiliation? (My understanding is DI is specifically neutral on religion and open to all scientific teaching and research regardless where the evidence leads)”

Question (2): “Has DI taken a stand on the enforcement of the 'church / state establishment' rules banning from public schools and colleges the teaching of evolution if it is being taught as a religion?”

Question (3): “When does teaching science cross the line from speculation to indoctrination?”

Question (4): “What kind of test can a teacher / parent / student use if they are trying to avoid being indoctrinated or being agents of religious indoctrination?”

Thoughtful and challanging questions that Mr. Luskin certainly had to tread carefully with his answers.

[innocence]"Maybe I'll write some questions to Mr. Luskin.Then he'll publish the answers for ALL to see."[/innocence]

I believe the "REAL Question" should be: In a Battle of the Tards, who would win?

a.) DaveScottb.) Casey Luskin

Please compare and contrast. Please leave DaveScott's "Unnatural Love For Another Man", Dembski, out of the equation, as this HOMO love should not interfere with your discussion. Unless, of course, you ARE a homo.

Let me begin. In my book, they are equi-tards. However, as DaveScott has @ 5,000 tard- post lead over Young Luskin, you have to give the nod (or slap upside the head) to DS, becasue of his body of work. Certainly NOT because of his body, such as it is, due to the preponderance of cheesey-poofs ingested over the course of his amassing his millionaire status.

Luskin however, will, in my opinion, be the bigger tard over time, as he has his hand on the ....well, call it "pulse", of the DI, and I believe his essential weasle essence will develop over time. You can already see he is a suck-up, and a brown-noser.

I believe it will help to visualize: Luskin closely resembles "Greg Marmalade", the brown-nosing Frat character on Animal House, where as DaveScott is closer to Niedermayer, the ROTC frat-jerk in Animal House that was fragged by his own men in Viet Nam after he graduated.

I think the discussion of which of these tards would win a locked-cage match , where only the winner comes out alive could be a entire thread on it's own.

It could be even more fun to speculate whether Dave's arteries will clog from cheesy-poofs first, or Casey Luskin asphixiate from his head up his glutious maximus first.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Somebody watch this Casey Luskin video Ed's talking about, and let us know how it is. I can't watch it. Last year I saw 10 minutes of Casey on C-SPAN and further Casey exposure would cause my eyes to roll so hard I'd risk spraining them.

Somebody watch this Casey Luskin video Ed's talking about, and let us know how it is. I can't watch it. Last year I saw 10 minutes of Casey on C-SPAN and further Casey exposure would cause my eyes to roll so hard I'd risk spraining them.

I got halfway through the darned video, now I want a prize!

ps: Casey looks a pretty small on the video... could Casey be a Homo floresiensis? He certainly looks microcephaloc to me... I am just saying....

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Somebody watch this Casey Luskin video Ed's talking about, and let us know how it is. I can't watch it. Last year I saw 10 minutes of Casey on C-SPAN and further Casey exposure would cause my eyes to roll so hard I'd risk spraining them.

I have referred to Casey Luskin as a "baby attorney" on more than one occasion. I intended only to address his education, experience, and expertise.

Now that I've seen the video, I realize that Casey Luskin actually, physically is still a baby--well, okay, maybe a toddler. He's about two feet tall, and clearly wearing a toupee intended to lend him the air of being in junior high.

Maybe from now on I'll have to refer to him as as "embryonic" attorney...